Debate about altruism
As i'm working on my doctoral dissertation, which is about corporate leaders leaving a legacy, that is engaging in initiatives for common good, I bumped on the topic of altruism. I found an interesting exploration on the topic, going back over two thousand years ago. Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hume, Rousseau - many philosphers concerned with moral developmed gave their opinion, and indicated the co-existence of selfishness and selflessness.
However, there have been others (Machiavaelli, Nietzsche, Hobbes and more recent philosophers) who declared that human nature was basically self-absorbed, greedy, ungrateful and morally compromised, that we need social constraints in order to keep within acceptable boundaries.
I need to share here my assumption. I assume that there is not a "right" and objective response, that we make meaning of what we see. So I wonder, if we have the choice of interpreting it one way or the other, which one makes us feel better?
posted by Isabel Rimanoczy @ 6:49 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
This question is beautifully posed in the wonderful book, The Life of Pi. Not to spoil the ending, it is worth noting that before the book is over, we have heard two different stories. In a committee of inquiry, the question is asked, "...since it makes no factual difference...which story do you prefer...?" The committee replies: "The story with the animals is the better story." Pi confirms it, saying "Thank you. And so it goes with God."
Sometimes the "truth" that lives within us is the better truth.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home